Date: Wed, 6 Jul 94 04:30:12 PDT From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup Errors-To: Ham-Policy-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: Ham-Policy@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #298 To: Ham-Policy Ham-Policy Digest Wed, 6 Jul 94 Volume 94 : Issue 298 Today's Topics: Existing regulations limit our advancement. Send Replies or notes for publication to: Send subscription requests to: Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. Archives of past issues of the Ham-Policy Digest are available (by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy". We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 06 Jul 1994 02:58:00 EST From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!wariat.org!amcomp!dan@network.ucsd.edu Subject: Existing regulations limit our advancement. To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu stevew@sheridan.ncd.com (Steve Wilson) writes: >In article <070394123154Rnf0.78@amcomp.com>, dan@amcomp.com (Dan Pickersgill) writes: >|> gary@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman) writes: >|> >|> >In article <070194232633Rnf0.78@amcomp.com> dan@amcomp.com (Dan Pickersgill) writes: >|> >>The FCC, as I understand it, considers these to be anciliary functions of >|> >>the repeater (like the patch) and can be restricted. The repeater is under >|> >>automatic control when a patch is made. Remember the person bringing up >|> >>the patch may not be and probably is NOT a control operator of the >|> >>repeater. They are accessing an anciliary function. >|> > >|> >97.109(e) No station may be automatically controlled while transmitting >|> >third-party communications, except a station retransmitting digital >|> >packet radio communications on the 6 m and shorter wavelength bands. >|> > >|> >It may be widely violated, but 97.109(e) is still on the books. Any >|> >time a patch is in use, a real live control operator with the ability >|> >to control transmission by some means other than by on the input channel >|> >signals must be present at a control point. >|> >|> Part 97.205 provides for 'anciliary' functions of a repeater. The autopatch >|> is an anciliary function of the repeater, thus being under part 97.205 >|> inclusive. And may be 'controled' over the input. Part 97.205 (d) allows >|> automatic control of a repeater. Arguably, repeaters are treated separatly >|> under 97.205 and the restrictions of 97.109 (e) may not apply to repeater >|> stations. >|> >|> Dan >|> -- >|> "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price >|> of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what >|> course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME >|> DEATH!" -Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23,1775 >|> =+=+=> Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun! - Me >|> > >Dan, > >I think you are confusing the point of 97.205. Repeaters ARE NOT >exempt from the requirements of 97.109(e). > >The ancillary function allowance permits the phone to be dialed up >from the input frequency of the repeater. It permits the playing of >recorded messaged, etc from "control signals" coming in on the input >frequency of the repeater AS OPPOSSED to the "control point" of the >repeater. > >97.109(e) requires that during any third party traffic occuring on >the repeater(not caring who caused the third party traffic) , that a >control operator be present at the control point. > >So, 97.205 allows anyone on the input of the repeater to operate the patch, >but 97.109(e) requires that a "control operator" be in the backround monitoring >the activity while any third-party traffic transpires. > >You have to take both of these together...there is not separation of the >two rules. I appologize for quoting the entire message I do so for content purposes. Apparently there is a large section in this group that has a problem understanding English. I said "ARGUABLY". I said that a credible argument COULD be made. That arguement could be lost as to point of fact. I made NO comment as to that point of fact. Nor my PERSONAL opinion as to the current state of the interpretation of the rules. If I was unclear as to the intent of my post I appologize, I assumed that 'arguably' would be understood. This group should, ARGUABLY, be intelegent enough to understand the word. Part 97 has to be taken as a whole, no arguement. The INTENT of the section would have to be exaimened before I could make a comment as to the reason the FCC enacted it. Dan -- "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH!" -Patrick Henry, Virginia House of Burgesses on March 23,1775 =+=+=> Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun! - Me ------------------------------ End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #298 ******************************